They would do well to remember that before Abramovich they were going out of business because of lack of support and spending more than they were earning.

I don’t see why any football fan shouldn’t live in the moment and especially so if that moment is glorious. It’s teams like us and Liverpool who are more fond of our history because it’s better. If your history is shit there’s no reason to remember it.
[/quote]But Chelsea supporters don’t do that.
All they do is go on about how great they are and ignore the reasons why.
If you listen to that idiot Andy Jacobs on Talk Sport, every time a caller says Chelsea are only successful because of the money, he won’t have it, and I have several mates who support Chelsea who are the same.
They gloss over the fact Abramovich is the only reason they are successful.
I even had one of they say to me last season that they are spending so much money on players because they are having to play catch up with Man City.

I don’t mind them having success but when they shove it in other supporters faces and it’s only because of money they were given, it’s hard to accept.

They are the most classless supporters in the PL, along with Man U.
I have more respect for spurs supporters.
At least their success has come from themselves, rather than a dodgy oil billionaire, and they have built their club from supporters money.

They are the most classless supporters in the PL, along with Man U.
I have more respect for spurs supporters.
At least their success has come from themselves

I think this is unfair. It’s not the supporters’ fault how their club became successful. What are they supposed to do? “Oh my club has been injected with oil money, I’ll have to stop supporting them now”

I’ve never had any problem with Chelsea fans. Aside from the usual banter that all fans give out.

They are the most classless supporters in the PL, along with Man U.
I have more respect for spurs supporters.
At least their success has come from themselves

I think this is unfair. It’s not the supporters’ fault how their club became successful. What are they supposed to do? “Oh my club has been injected with oil money, I’ll have to stop supporting them now”

I’ve never had any problem with Chelsea fans. Aside from the usual banter that all fans give out.
[/quote]I don’t know any that attribute their success to Abramovich.
Maybe it’s just the ones I speak to, but generally look down on clubs like us.
I had a conversation, a few seasons ago, with a couple of Chelsea supporters that were gloating because we were paying for a stadium and selling our best players, while they were just buying the worlds best players.

It’s this arrogance and stupidity that is most irritating.

Their supporters should remember, that since they had all this money, we have produced more players through our youth set up for Chelsea they they have themselves, Cole and Cesc.

I don’t know any that attribute their success to Abramovich.
Maybe it’s just the ones I speak to, but generally look down on clubs like us.
I had a conversation, a few seasons ago, with a couple of Chelsea supporters that were gloating because we were paying for a stadium and selling our best players, while they were just buying the worlds best players.

It’s this arrogance and stupidity that is most irritating.

Then perhaps you associate with morons. The Chelsea fans I know have had season tickets since pre Roman and although they appreciate what he has done, some of them often say they miss the old times. They might gloat that they’re better than us (they are!) and tease that Sanchez will be playing for them next season but they’re certainly not stupid enough to think Roman’s money has no input in their change of fortunes.

Chelsea have actually won the FA youth cup for the last 4 years! But so what if we do produce more players that way than them? Where has that got us?! Our best player - the subject of this thread, was a big money buy, and that’s what a lot of our fans want to see more of.

To me Chelsea fans are generally the cuntiest of them all. No history and only been successful now because of sudden oil money syndrome.

United fans have a great history, won a lot and been always exciting to follow under Ferguson, I remember our rivalry with them fondly even at its height and the fight between our captains. To boot, the united fans I know are generally speaking not deluded twats and know they are in a difficult position and their team underperforming given the manager, money and players they have at their disposal.

Chelsea have actually won the FA youth cup for the last 4 years! But so what if we do produce more players that way than them? Where has that got us?! Our best player - the subject of this thread, was a big money buy, and that’s what a lot of our fans want to see more of.

They did win the youth cup, and they played the other oil rich club in the final, Man City, because they buy up all the best young talent and send them out on loan all over Europe.
So they are more than likely to get players that way than a club that can only afford to buy a few.

As for Sanchez being a big money buy, that of course is true, but it was our money, generated by our supporters, not buy a Russian billionaire.

The reason we have only got Sanchez and Ozil, and Chelsea buy squad players for 30m or more is because we only get money from our supporters.

You can defend them all you like, but despise everything about their club, and the way they, and clubs like them, have ruined football.

My argument was more that you’re having a go at the fans, it is not the fans fault how their club is run. If we got bought by a Russian billionaire would you change teams?

That’s fair enough, maybe the ones I meet are worse than others.

As for us being bought by someone like Abramovich, I have had that conversation with my Arsenal mates about being taken over by someone like Usmanov, and some would welcome it and some wouldn’t.
I would prefer not to go down that route because it would just be a situation where it’s just a battle between immensely rich oil billionaires and there play things.

Saying that, if it did happen, and we got an owner who would buy the best players, and we saw Messi and Ronaldo in our starting line up, I’m sure I could be persuaded

I don’t see why Chelsea fans have to acknowledge anything, why they are compelled to acknowledge that Abramovich is the reason for their success? If I were them I’d just be over the moon with the success and pay no mind to the bitter people trying to talk down their success. I just don’t see why they should give a shit, or why anyone else still does?

Enough time has passed now imo. In another ten years will it be reasonable to bleat about Abramovich paying for their success? What about in twenty years time? How long had to pass before Arsenal fans could legitimately stop caring about the bent crook Sir Henry Norris cheating our way into the top flight? Or for our reputation as the Bank of England club to die down, for we were once the large spenders financially out muscling others?

Not having a go at anyone, I just don’t see the point in talking about why they’re now a massive club, because all that matters now is that they are.

Yeah it matters little if we had Usmanov splashing the cash I wouldn’t give a shit either. In saying that Chelsea fans can’t expect to have much respect from the wider football community in regards to their success, but as you said they probably don’t care or nor should they.

We’re richer than Chelsea now. A lot of fans don’t want to acknowledge it but we are. They haven’t signed a single player we couldn’t afford since Torres. We could have bought Kante, Costa, Hazard and paid them their current salaries and still signed Ozil, Sanchez, Xhaka, Cech, Mustafi and still had plenty of cash in the bank.

When City are paying 50m for Stones, De Bruyne, Sterling, United are paying 90m for Pogba, Barca are paying 70m for Neymar, Madrid are paying 90m for Bale, I don’t think anyone can really look at this Chelsea side and complain about money.

Well he played for Barca and they pretty much pay for their success. Cruyff, Maradona, Ronaldinho. . .not really any difference there.

The difference is that Barcelona are one of the biggest and most famous clubs in football but when Abramovich bought Chelsea that were no bigger than clubs like West Ham or Newcastle.
They were also about to go out of business due to their overspending and lack of income.
Basically, clubs like Barcelona buy players through revenue from their vast support, Chelsea buy their players because of a very rich owner, who had no allegiance to the club.

[quote=“Craigie, post:2565, topic:98”]
We’re richer than Chelsea now. A lot of fans don’t want to acknowledge it but we are. They haven’t signed a single player we couldn’t afford since Torres. We could have bought Kante, Costa, Hazard and paid them their current salaries and still signed Ozil, Sanchez, Xhaka, Cech, Mustafi and still had plenty of cash in the bank.
[/quote] It’s true we could have afforded to buy those players you mentioned but although Chelsea might not have spent 90m on one player, I think they have spent 20-30m on more than fifteen players, in fact they have bought squad players for that sort of money.
This is the main reason they have been so successful.
They have no weak links in the first team and the rest of their squad is probably capably of doing ok in the PL as well.

Remember they have spent a net of more than half a billion players since they were taken over, and that is the reason they are so successful.
We can’t compete with that.

Why do you keep mentioning about them being a yo yo team in the past for. Okay the had a period of being poor, but there is no relevance in that.
Honestly they were on the up before Abromovich tbf having won a couple of trophies. Did have 2 european trophies before him too.